[ SECRET POST #3006 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3006 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________



20.


__________________________________________________



21.


__________________________________________________



22.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 140 secrets from Secret Submission Post #430.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

18. http://i.imgur.com/oSn6Ps2.png

Transcript by OP

[fscom]

Image: Drawing of a cracked pot.

Text: A few days ago, on her blog, one of my favorite authors took a gleeful leap off the deep end of Anarcho-Libertarianism.

My reaction was pretty much *yawn* “Another batshit author? It must be a day that ends in Y.”

I'd like to think that this was a measure of my growing sense of proportion and maturity.

Instead I feel like it's a sign that I'm finally losing all of my faith in humanity.

[mekkio]

Nah, it's just that you have come to the realization that 99% of authors are flippin' nuts. In some way or another.

That's just how it is. So much so that a crazy author is a cliche.

[dethtoll]

Ahahahahaha anarcho-capitalists (another term for anarcho-libertarian, means the same thing) are the weirdest, stupidest people in the world.

[sjwsapphire.livejournal.com]

They're living oxymorons.

[(Anonymous)]

how the fuck does anarcho-capitalism even work?

is it basically just 'whee corporations should do whatever they want and then there'll be 100 tony starks running around', because that's the impression i've gotten

[(Anonymous)]

the andrew ryan school of economics?

[dethtoll]

The best part is I actually looked up the relationship because ancap actually does stem from Ayn Rand/objectivism, which Bioshock is a pretty good critique of, and the first result was a forum thread talking about a video by the (ex) friend I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

It's such a rambling mess that doesn't really say anything, too, which is par for the course with that dude.

[dethtoll]

Sort of. The basic idea is that "got mine, fuck you" should be the driving philosophy of human behaviour. Taxes are slavery, and therefore stuff like infrastructure, law enforcement and security services should all be privately funded.

I had a friend who believed in this stuff. He never quite had any satisfactory answers whenever I asked him pertinent questions about what's stopping someone from buying out (or destroying) their competitors and taking over. His answer was "if people don't like it, they can just go somewhere else/buy from a competitor."

And if they can't? No answer.

This site pretty much explains it better than I could: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[(Anonymous)]

lol ok so the fact that people group together (and we've historically tended to stay alive better that way) basically means nothing to these people, so we should all sort of roam around as solitary survivalists like something out of a zombie apocalypse

good to know

[dethtoll]

[(Anonymous)]

It's all in this book by the awesome Nathan Holn!

OP

[(Anonymous)]

She described taxes as "thuggery."

I considered her asking how she thought her roads were paved and police paid and firefighters paid, but decided that it would just be pointless hornets-nest-poking.

Re: OP

[dethtoll]

Oh, you should've done it anyway. I love watching these people squirm as they struggle to answer really basic questions.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's just a fancy word for predation.

[visp]

A good author isn't the same thing as a good person. In fact, a great imagination, while helpful in writing fiction, is not a particularly helpful in developing sound political views.

[(Anonymous)]

After all, when you're the one doing the writing, all your theories for an ideal society will work perfectly.

[(Anonymous)]

Can anyone narrow down which author this might be? I'm curious.

[evewithanapple]

I'm 99% sure it's Holly Lisle: http://hollylisle.com/open-letter-to-sfwa-upon-my-resignation/

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Got it in one.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh man, thanks for that link. I needed a laugh. :)

I dunno. This doesn't sound that extreme to me

[feotakahari]

Granted, when I think of writers going off the deep end, I think of that writer I used to love who wrote a seven-part essay about how women are ruining science fiction, or the one who said that the appropriate response to legal gay marriage would be violent revolution. But I can see why someone would argue that taxpayer dollars should not go to the SFWA.

Re: I dunno. This doesn't sound that extreme to me

[evewithanapple]

Opinions about the use of taxes, sure. Even leaving the organization. But calling it "institutionalized thuggery?" Uhh.

[kaffy_r]

I suspect it might be Holly Lisle, who announced her departure from SFWA recently. Her statement was received with a certain amount of eyebrow-raising.

[elialshadowpine]

This is Holly Lisle, who I've had personal experience with. She is not just a libertarian whackjob, she is also transphobic as fuck. My ex-fiance is trans, and she acted as a mentor to him; when he came out to her, she told him it was fine, she understood completely. Then this happened:

TW for transphobia (with a note for language that my ex is much, much older and the terminology he uses around trans was very different in 2002 than now)

Holly wrote a blog entry on feminism and how it's not about man-hating that I actually agreed with. (She being extremely conservative, we usually agreed on jack and shit. :P)

So I posted to it, telling her that I agreed, that I liked men and was marrying one. (Her blog entry and my comment can be found here: http://hollylisle.com/greylog/archives/00000300.html ) (NOTE: Holly deleted this a long time ago)

She wrote me back, wanting to know why I'd lied on her blog, why I hadn't outright said I was a lesbian. I was confused, because Robert had come out to her as a preop female-to-male transsexual the year before and she was fine with it; in fact, she was very understanding and supportive.

Here is my response to her and her subsequent reply:

> I didn't lie. Robert and I are going to be handfasted this November,
> which we are treating like a marriage, and legally married as soon as
> possible, which won't be until after he can get his surgery. I am not
> in a lesbian relationship and it would be lying to say I was. Robert's
> transsexual, but that does *not* mean that he isn't a man. His
> condition's a birth defect and it's wrong to treat him differently
> because of it. I realize his condition is often misunderstood; here's
> the link to a good informative article.
> http://transsexual.org/aprimer.html :)
>
> Nonny

Then you're lying to yourself, too. Okay, just wanted to know where you were coming from.

Just for the record, and so everyone is clear on where I stand on this, the only way anyone can be a man (or woman) is to be born one. With the full package, whatever that package might be, whether testes and a penis, or ovaries and a uterus. And to grow up with all the experiences that shape him or her -- the expectations and the reactions. I'm aware of what the PCThink on this is on transsexuals, and it's bullshit. I don't have a problem with your relationship or with Robert's surgery, I refer to Robert as "he" for the same reason I referred to some of my uncle's boyfriends as "she" (it was their preferred form of address), but saying it's so doesn't make it so. My uncle was gay in spite of the fact that he sometimes dated men who wanted to be women, and if you're in a relationship with another woman, that would make you a lesbian. Or bi, if you've been in relationships with men, too. Whatever. Once Robert has his surgery, you'll be married to a woman with a penis, with all the memories of having been a woman, and with all the life experiences of a woman.

As for the birth defect issue -- my aunt has a birth defect. She has a uterus and ovaries, two testicles and a penis. She was born with them. She also has some serious gender issues, and if she
suddenly wanted me to call her Hank instead of Helen, I wouldn't think twice. My sister has a birth defect. She has cerebral palsy -- was born with it, is mentally retarded and has some physical problems, too.

But having a shit life, being abused and developing psychological issues because of it is not the same thing as a birth defect.

This is another case of "Words matter," Nonny. Unless Robert has the extra chromasomes that make this a birth defect, it's a psychological problem.

If this makes me terribly non-PC, too bad. I don't think anyone thought I was too far left on the PC scale anyway.

Holly

To add to that, she's a horrific writing educator, which is especially bad considering that's how she's making a living these days. For instance, she told my ex he couldn't write his Asimov-homage robot novel, because "readers won't identify with any character that isn't human" and "it won't sell". She was very strict on "what won't sell." She told the entire board at one point not to bother writing LGBT characters because her "agent said" that "they don't sell." Mind, this agent represented Mercedes Lackey and Marion Zimmer Bradley, who both had LOTS of queer characters in their fiction. My guess at this point is that Holly epically failed at writing her lesbian character, and thus was told she'd do better changing her to straight. Considering some of her commentary on lesbians, and the above letter, I find this quite likely.

On top of that, there's at least three major shitstorms I can think of she's caused in about the last five years. One was while she was writing romance novels to support herself. She decided to, on her blog, deride romance as "porn" and how she'd never publish it (and at several other points had connected the romance genre with porn -- note, when she refers to "romantica", that was the term used at the time for sexy romances). This is probably the mildest of the bunch: http://dearauthor.com/features/letters-of-opinion/foot-in-mouth-disease-affecting-fantasy-sector/

Another was when she decided to claim that chain bookstores were the reason her books weren't selling and basically asked her readership to boycott chains and go to indie bookstores instead. Needless to say, people who worked at chain bookstores like Borders and B&N were not pleased. http://dearauthor.com/features/letters-of-opinion/authors-behaving-badly-holly-lisle/

She also posted an e-mail from a reader who disagreed with her political rants and said she'd be trashing her books. Holly then invited her commenters to bash the woman in question: http://karenknowsbest.com/2008/06/13/holly-lisle-on-making-friends-and-influencing-readers/

So, yeah. Holly Lisle has a... history. Do I have a grudge? Why yes. Yes, I do.